Cat_72 said:
Some folks just can't get past their personal issues with others, and let it affect they way they post even on threads that have nothing to do with the issues in question....dragging those posts so far off topic it's shameful.
I'm not going to waste a post saying that I agree... without expanding on the idea.
I'd tend to say that the way people harbor grudges is a behavior inherent in all of us, it's an offshoot of how we learn and alter our behavior on the most basic levels; just translated through to concepts that aren't as concrete as a little kid putting their hand on a stove. Add some ego, conceit and a desire to be right and it can get pretty unpleasant.
Comes down to pattern recognition though. If interaction with ____ is a negative experience enough times in a row, the response to any interaction grows stronger and quicker each time. People, as rational, self aware organisms should be able to overcome those learned responses... and thus control their behavior... but it's not always easy.
Hell, in the last week I have typed out (and subsequently deleted without posting) a good half dozen responses to people I thought were being idiots because I reccognized that I was predisposed to get into a brawl with a couple people and that the end result would never be their sitting down and admitting that I am right about whatever the point of contention was- and that there's appropriate places and times to have an argument for the sake of expressing a viewpoint to undecided individuals... and there are times and places where it's just going to result in an even bigger explosion next time as the bad blood grows.
Appropriateness is a matter of perspective though. To cite a specific example- recently Lucille wrote a post on an innocent thread about member sponsered forums where she suggested being able to vote members into temporary suspension. Or pay for it, or... something. I disagreed with the idea behind it for a half dozen logical reasons but when I typed out my response, because Lucille and i have gone a few rounds in the past, I found that I had written a post that didn't really disagree with or attack her *idea* but one that had attacked her on a personal level. So I closed the browser window because, as much as I dislike her and disagreed with her idea, the strength of the response was not appropriate to the strength of the infraction. I felt that it would lead to nothing good and chose not to respond. Wes (who I have agreed with and disagreed with any every possible range inbetween the two on various issues and approaches) decided it was worth writing a post, again with similar antagonistic history between them, because he felt the idea was bad enough to warrant comment. Perspective; I decided Lucille writing a post wasn't enough to start a rumble over- my actions may have been different if it were taken seriously as a legitimate suggestion by the site staff, then I'd come forth with arguments against it- others saw it as being more important than I did.
When you start adding a history of long standing disagreements to any new disagreements, it can quickly spiral out of control since both sides will percieve any slight as an attack, intended or not. Anyone prone to debate and argument probably has their own list of people who they find themselves tangling with on a regular enough basis to provoke that stronger kind of angry response... some of us certainly have longer lists than others. Telling people to seperate the poster from the post isn't really a valid solution either, since there's a reason why those resentments build and without the memory of past interactions, everyone would still be buying hets from Jesse Underhill. Suggesting that people are at least aware of those grudges and bigger anger are present in a discussion and then making a decision to proceed or stifle from there might be a more workable concept.